Defunded Consumers’ Utility Counsel leaves void

To the president of Georgia AARP, it’s a travesty.

To advocates at the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, it couldn’t have happened at a worse time.

Both were reacting Wednesday to the news that Consumers’ Utility Counsel, a fixture of state government since 1975, is no more.

The Governor’s Office of Consumer Affairs, where the utility counsel and its duties have been housed for the past decade, cut its funding to zero this week, saying it was necessary to meet Gov. Sonny Perdue’s required budget cuts.

The CUC represents the interests of residents and small businesses when utilities like Georgia Power Co. and Atlanta Gas Light argue their own interests before the state Public Service Commission.

It is one of 44 such offices in 40 states, according to the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates.

The decision to “defund” the CUC doesn’t formally eliminate the agency, which is written into state law.

But it means nobody will be in the job that state law requires, eliminating the CUC in practice.

“It will be a travesty if this office is effectively closed because of no funding,” said AARP state president Cas Robinson, a former legislator and state Public Service Commissioner.

“There’s no way to fully describe the void that’s going to be created by this,” he said. “Who is going to be out there protecting the small consumers’ interests in these large rate cases? Nobody.”

State lawmakers created the CUC in 1975.

At the time, it was an independent agency, charged with providing legal representation to Georgia’s smaller utility consumers.

The state Legislature put it under the governor’s office, melding it into the consumer affairs program, in 1995.

To some, the CUC’s demise began then, as an agency that once boasted eight to 10 staffers, including lawyers and financial analysts, shrunk to its current size.

Only one lawyer and an assistant now work there.

Representation lost

“Georgia needs an independent voice for small consumers,” said Rita Kilpatrick, Georgia director for the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, which advocates against additional traditional power plants and for conservation and alternative energy.

“We’ve needed that ever since the CUC was put into the governor’s agency and didn’t have independence anymore.”

The decision to cut its funding, she said, “is evidence of how serious a problem that is.”

It means average consumers will not be represented in a looming debate over building and paying for new nuclear reactors in Georgia, she said.

AARP’s Robinson said he advocated to put the CUC under the governor at the time, but only to save it in some form.

The utility counsel was under attack and in danger of being eliminated by the Legislature, he said.

Even in the 1980s, “when I was in the Legislature, you constantly had to fend off those who wanted to destroy the CUC,” he said.

The CUC always had enemies, he said. “The utilities never liked it and I don’t think they like it now either.”

No voice for consumers

Georgia’s largest utility said otherwise: “We’ve always had a good working relationship with the CUC,” said Georgia Power spokeswoman Carol Boatwright.

“Although we will miss working with their staff, we will continue our efforts to provide Georgia with reliable, low-cost electricity.”

Spokesmen for the consumer affairs office and the governor said Perdue’s office didn’t ask for the CUC cut.

“All of the agencies decided [how to cut costs] themselves,” said Perdue spokesman Bert Brantley.

Commissioners learned the CUC news from Georgia Power, after a CUC lawyer called the utility’s lawyer to clean up loose ends in a pending case.

The cut was immediate. The CUC did not file an expected brief Wednesday in a case involving power cut-off rules.

Commissioner Doug Everett, who often sparred with the CUC, said he was sorry to see the CUC go: “They were the main voice of the consumer and small business. Now they won’t have anyone representing them directly anymore.”

He said the PSC staff can’t fill the void.

“We have to treat both consumers and the provider equally. It would be impossible.”